987 réponses à ce sujet

[Oopsieoops]

D.Kain wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...

UltiPup wrote...

Voiced. I like to hear my character speak like a real person. With a voice, a personality is physically shown. In Origins, you were stuck in permanent derp face.

The problem is that that personality is fixed and with no input from you.

Maybe the solution would be to never show ones face during conversations, so that you could imagine ne mimics? 

I'd say DAO already was the solution.

[D.Kain]

Oopsieoops wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...

UltiPup wrote...

Voiced. I like to hear my character speak like a real person. With a voice, a personality is physically shown. In Origins, you were stuck in permanent derp face.

The problem is that that personality is fixed and with no input from you.

Maybe the solution would be to never show ones face during conversations, so that you could imagine ne mimics? 

I'd say DAO already was the solution.

Well yes I agree. I liked the way DAO handled it. They should stick to it then. =)

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

I would say the voiced protagonist is along the same lines as tying your own shoes..it's a vastly overrated experience.

[LordKinoda]

but that thinking doesn't make Jen a bad VA.

Oh I never said she was "bad" just didn't fit for me.

I think it is simply because you cannot play a femShep and that's fine,

I also think any other VA for femShep would likely have garnered the same thinking from you either way.

Indeed, I said this a few posts ago. This might be the reason, maybe it's a combination of both.

But that isn't how you stated it before,as you now differeniate why, just saying.

Sometimes I forget to type out my full thought and think that I did, lol.

Since you seemingly expressed surprise to my gender, you tell a little about yourself here.

Wasn't really surprised, your screen name is a little clue for one. But what does my response tell you about me that I haven't already stated ?

And, I would never use any line like your example because I am some manly guy who plays fem-avatars while then having to procclaim my hetero-ness in why I do it. it really doesn't matter to me, it is just as simple as to what I like to play. If you get to know me in these forums, you'll find I am as far from being homophobic as one can possibly be.

Good Can't tell you how many times I've seen that reasoning used in one form or another.

In Origins, you were stuck in permanent derp face.

Heh, don't know if I would put it like that. "Blank" faced is a little better IMO. Don't know why they didn't use more facial animations for the Warden like they did for Revan in KOTOR.

[Oopsieoops]

LordKinoda wrote...

In Origins, you were stuck in permanent derp face.

Heh, don't know if I would put it like that. "Blank" faced is a little better IMO. Don't know why they didn't use more facial animations for the Warden like they did for Revan in KOTOR.

The more emotions they infuse on the PC the less YOU can, be it through voice or expressions. Origins handled it pretty well but one instance in particular where it really annoyed me was during the Joining when ser Jory was killed and the Warden always grimaces. I was playing a detached and unphased character and so that really bugged me.

[LordKinoda]

The more emotions they infuse on the PC the less YOU can, be it through voice or expressions.

That's the thing though. We all act almost universally to most stimuli. And since the stimuli is scripted in the game and not totally open ended the writers and programmers can make it so the character has facial expressions regardless of whether or not they actually speak in the game.

Microexpressions
FACS

It's too bad they didn't at least do that for the Warden, and why it's better to have a voiced character. Maybe nuanced facial expressions are really hard to animate ? I couldn't say. So the voice is left to do it because it is easier to convey the emotion for the given dialog.

Origins handled it pretty well but one instance in particular where it really annoyed me was during the Joining when ser Jory was killed and the Warden always grimaces. I was playing a detached and unphased character and so that really bugged me.

I applaud your use of imagination for the character, but in the end it is irrelevant. Because you are still basically limited to the lines you choose to make your character express emotions and define him/herself. You can "play" the Warden "detached and unphased" or "lofty and quixotic", but it can't matter unless those choices are actually present for you to choose. In your head it can work, but why bother when it will never show up in the game ? Nuances cannot be applied to a silent character, while they CAN for a voiced one.

[Oopsieoops]

LordKinoda wrote...

I applaud your use of imagination for the character, but in the end it is irrelevant. Because you are still basically limited to the lines you choose to make your character express emotions and define him/herself. You can "play" the Warden "detached and unphased" or "lofty and quixotic", but it can't matter unless those choices are actually present for you to choose. In your head it can work, but why bother when it will never show up in the game ? Nuances cannot be applied to a silent character, while they CAN for a voiced one.

Because the lines were silent they could be infused with an enoumous range interpretations, meanings and variations. IOW the exact same lines can be used to portray eg derrison if said with a sarcastic tone, aloofness if with an uninterested tone, or comitment if said with a serious one. Because the actual input from the part of the PC was minimum, the roleplayed intention was as credible as the one evisioned by the writer. So for all intents and purposes they *will* show up in the game. A voiced one however bares it out completely and appropriates the meaning with the only one which was obviously intended, with no such leeway allowed. So it's actually the opposite of what you claimed, nuances can ONLY be achieved with a silent PC.

[Solar1101]

I would vote for silent protagonists so that we can have more flexibility. I didn't mind Hawke so much as I minded not being able to play as an elf or dwarf or even Qunari. Sure people (being human) identify with a human character easier, but I don't care about that. I want to put in effort to create a new character and make it just a little bit different each time I play. I didn't buy it for the voice acting.

[fightright2]

I love silent for the reason that I can hear my own voice in my head.
But I do love the sound of the others voices. Just not my own.
Additionally, having voiced protagonist means that a change of reading exactly what your dialogue would be, to having to pick your dialogue based on paraphrasing in a couple of words.

I like knowing what I will say exactly and hearing my own voice in my head.

[Monica83]

Silent of course

[Maconbar]

Clearly the community is split on this issue but does anyone really think that BW is going to use a silent PC in DA:3?

[Tommy6860]

Maconbar wrote...

Clearly the community is split on this issue but does anyone really think that BW is going to use a silent PC in DA:3?

No, it has been made clear to that effect by the devs. I am bummed, but, it is what it is .

[Oopsieoops]

Maconbar wrote...

Clearly the community is split on this issue but does anyone really think that BW is going to use a silent PC in DA:3?

That's precisely the main reason there's still so much vitriol around, I'd say.

[blothulfur]

Just booted up an old save of Planescape: Torment at the fortress of regrets and to my amazement Lady Grace does not speak all her lines during her final confrontation with the transcendant one, and yet in my memory I can hear Jennifer Hale's clear, cool, cut glass accent as she ridicules and verbally jousts with the old monster. And this is true for most of the companions, I hear their voices in my memory on lines that were not even voiced.

This says to me that the power of text allied with occasional spoken dialogue at logical places is still a very effective method of conveying story and not just cheaper but more easily subject to modification when one of the innumerable re-designs occurs mid development prompting a change in dialogue.

However I doubt that a more text based approach will ever be used by bioware again, a pity because as a weapon in the writers arsenal it can be more effective than the most shiny graphics or visual trick. Sticks and stones can break my bones but with words I can raise armies, unite nations and sow the seeds of revolution.

[Pasquale1234]

Oopsieoops wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Clearly the community is split on this issue but does anyone really think that BW is going to use a silent PC in DA:3?

That's precisely the main reason there's still so much vitriol around, I'd say.

Agreed.  It's nice that the devs are communicating with us, but what I'm hearing is that they are going to stay the course of DA2, and possibly throw an occasional bone to the fan base established in DAO.  They are going to continue with their implementation of things that many fans of DAO did not ask for and do not want.

I guess we'll see how well that works for them in the sales numbers going forward.

[In Exile]

blothulfur wrote...
However I doubt that a more text based approach will ever be used by bioware again, a pity because as a weapon in the writers arsenal it can be more effective than the most shiny graphics or visual trick. Sticks and stones can break my bones but with words I can raise armies, unite nations and sow the seeds of revolution.

Not to get involved in this debate again... 

...but if instead of giving a speech you held up placards that your audience had to read, you'll find that with words you'll raise a lot less army and a lot more no one cares. 

[blothulfur]

And yet vast ideas and descriptions can be transmitted through words much more easily than graphics, a bloody, burned and raving survivor babbling of a dragons raging that only he of an entire army survived can be brutally effective if presented properly and set a scene and a vibe while that same situation shown in cutscene is expensive and very animator intensive.

I can see your point in saying that flagging up our dialogue options through text is not particularly immersive or powerful but for me that depends on the quality of the prose and the plot it is presenting. And with companions we are not suffering from that aspect, as we don't really know what they'll say much of the time.

[In Exile]

blothulfur wrote...
And yet vast ideas and descriptions can be transmitted through words much more easily than graphics,

That's not what you said. You said words inspire people. That's true. But when they're spoken out loud, or given in a medium where text is reasonable. 

a bloody, burned and raving survivor babbling of a dragons raging that only he of an entire army survived can be brutally effective if presented properly and set a scene and a vibe while that same situation shown in cutscene is expensive and very animator intensive.

Yes, but it is visually evocative in only one way, and this is coming from someone who is very imaginative. There is a difference between seeing in a mind's eye and seeing.

I can see your point in saying that flagging up our dialogue options through text is not particularly immersive or powerful but for me that depends on the quality of the prose and the plot it is presenting. And with companions we are not suffering from that aspect, as we don't really know what they'll say much of the time.

It's not about immersion. I don't like that buzzword. 

I'm just trying to show the really powerful clash between mediums. If we had a text only RPG, that would be one thing. It there was no VO for any character, that would be another (the half spoken line, half text, bothered me SO MUCH I muted the game in every conversation for those RPGs that had it). 

It's like watching a movie and having to read from the script for one character's dialogue (basically, like the old silent films).

[blothulfur]

I suppose it could be a matter of how the old noggin translates such things and therefore applies differently to individuals, you say tomato and I say spherical red fruit kind of deal. For me the written word trumps voice acting as i'm not particularly enamoured of the current presentation of voice works with it's reliance on the monotone as a base line and its expense, but I can see a little hope through the implementation of tone icons even though for me they failed almost every time they were used in DA2.

[In Exile]

blothulfur wrote...
 For me the written word trumps voice acting as i'm not particularly enamoured of the current presentation of voice works with it's reliance on the monotone as a base line and its expense, but I can see a little hope through the implementation of tone icons even though for me they failed almost every time they were used in DA2.

Oh, I think the monotone is horrid. But it's also a staple of Bioware's dialogue in general. The silent PCs are no less monote. If you look at the PS:T or New Vegas dialogue and compare it with the BG or DA:O dialogue, the colour is just not there. 

[Imrahil_]

Maconbar wrote...

Clearly the community is split on this issue but does anyone really think that BW is going to use a silent PC in DA:3?

For some strange reason they seem perfectly willing to lose half their audience with each sequel.

At the rate they're going, Dragon Age 10 will have about 7,000 players.  You will only be able to play as Mike Laidlaw.  You'll press the SuperFantasticAwesome button & watch Mike pace around the same room for 20 hours.  Everything will be romanceable, though, so you'll get to see Mike marry a lamp*.  Mike loves lamp.

* (note: the lamp will wear a wedding dress, but its appearance won't change since Non-Wedding Dress Lamp will be considered the iconic look for the lamp, in case people want to cosplay)

[In Exile]

Imrahil_ wrote...
For some strange reason they seem perfectly willing to lose half their audience with each sequel.

Yeah, it could be something crazy like artistic integrity, where they design the game they want instead of what the fanbase clamours for.

[Oopsieoops]

In Exile wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...
For some strange reason they seem perfectly willing to lose half their audience with each sequel.

Yeah, it could be something crazy like artistic integrity, where they design the game they want instead of what the fanbase clamours for.

Artistic integrity plays no role in this at all. They are in the business to make money (as they should) not to feel good about themselves in doing that want. DA2 was the product of misinterpreting their market, not of them sticking with their artistic view.
Incidentally, for a capitalist company to stick with a formula unwated by their costumer base out of artistic integrity would be the very definition of "something crazy".

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 01 septembre 2011 - 05:02 .

[In Exile]

Oopsieoops wrote...
Artistic integrity plays no role in this at all. They are in the business to make money (as they should) not to feel good about themselves in doing that want. DA2 was the product of misinterpreting their market, not of them sticking with their artistic view.

I find it funny that people are willing to criticize EA/Bioware on one had for chasing $$ and designing games to appeal to the greates market possible, and then criticize DA2 on grounds that it sold less than DA:O and that the DA:O fanbase ought to be catered to on the basis of how much $$ Bioware can make.

Incidentally, for a capitalist company to stick with a formula unwated by their costumer base out of artistic integrity would be the very definition of "something crazy".

"Unwanted" is a relative term. COD sold 11 million and DA:O sold 4. That's more than a 2:1 ratio, and comparable to how much DA:O outsold DA2. Does that mean Bioware is doing something crazy by not reaching for the COD audience? 

[Oopsieoops]

In Exile wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...
Artistic integrity plays no role in this at all. They are in the business to make money (as they should) not to feel good about themselves in doing that want. DA2 was the product of misinterpreting their market, not of them sticking with their artistic view.

I find it funny that people are willing to criticize EA/Bioware on one had for chasing $$ and designing games to appeal to the greates market possible, and then criticize DA2 on grounds that it sold less than DA:O and that the DA:O fanbase ought to be catered to on the basis of how much $$ Bioware can make.

*Shrug* I was never one to criticize them on those grounds. At any rate, I'd say it's not them trying to make money so much as doing so in a short-sighted and mullish manner.

In Exile wrote...

Incidentally, for a capitalist company to stick with a formula unwated by their costumer base out of artistic integrity would be the very definition of "something crazy".

"Unwanted" is a relative term. COD sold 11 million and DA:O sold 4. That's more than a 2:1 ratio, and comparable to how much DA:O outsold DA2. Does that mean Bioware is doing something crazy by not reaching for the COD audience? 

But their fanbase is not COD's and they have no know-how to make games which would compete with COD for its market. To try to do so is a fools errand. OTOH they do have a huge know-how on how to make excellent RPGs for their already stabilished fanbase, not to mention customer fidelity and goodwill. Exploring and catering to a niche market has it's own set of advantages, all of which are being squandered by BW, and that's the gist of most critiscisms.

So no, giving up their fanbases and already stabilished niche market to pursue a path that's a lot more competitive, unforgiving, and on which they have zero experience and on which most of the skills they acquired during all these years have nearly no value at all is not a sound strategy to make money.

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 01 septembre 2011 - 05:35 .